After School Sports are Bad for Education

by David Safier

In what must seem like a neverending crusade to piss off every high school coach, high school athlete and couch potato – oops, I meant to say, sports fan – in Arizona, here is part three of my reasons why after school sports should be cut before we think of closing schools or cutting back on any part of our schools’ curriculum. (Part 1. Part 2.)

After school sports programs distract students from their studies.

U.S. students don’t rank well in world wide testing. Actually, that’s putting it nicely. We suck in world education rankings. Scholars rack their brains to find the reasons for our lagging scores, but strangely absent from these discussions is that, so far as I know, we’re the only country whose schools run what can only be described as sports farm teams for teenagers.

Our students involved in after school sports spend as much as 15-20 hours a week in practice or in competition against other teams. Students in other countries don’t spend nearly that kind of time or effort on sports. Could that emphasis have something to do with our students’ lack of focus on academics?

A number of years ago, I had an exchange student from Sweden in class. A few weeks into the year, she told me she went out for the school volleyball team. “I played volleyball at home,” she said, “and I loved it. We all got together Saturday morning, practiced for a few hours, then played against the other team. After that, we went out to lunch together. That was it. Here, they want me to practice every day after school. And the coach takes it so seriously. I’m not sure I want to spend that much effort playing volleyball.”

I did some online research on high school sports in other countries.

In Finland, which has some of the best student achievement in the world, high school students on average spend an hour in physical exercise during each school day and about 90 minutes on their free days. If they want to play competitive sports, they join sports organizations.

In France, secondary students spend about three hours a week in physical education and can join sports clubs if they want more.

In Germany, only a few schools have sports teams which compete against other schools, and most students aren’t even aware of the team’s existence.

In Japan, about a third of high school students take part in sports clubs. I couldn’t find information saying how much time per week the students spend.

I even went to Google Earth to look at aerial photos of school grounds in other countries. Conspicuously absent were the multiple sports fields that take up half or more of our high school campuses. In most countries, schools are where students go to school, not where they pretend to be professional athletes.

Are we actually harming our students’ educations by overemphasizing sports in school? That’s impossible to say. But it’s hard to argue that our students are better able to compete in a world market because they can throw a better body block, shoot a more accurate three pointer or smack a small ball farther with a stick than students in the rest of the world.

Comments

[Michael Bryan]

Bold thinking, David! I like it. Why should we have this elaborate and expensive sports complex in our schools. It's not necessary for physical fitness, and all of it can be turned to to non-profit, or for-profit private entities for voluntary participation by the kids who want it. Why should we be paying for this? I want my taxes to go for growing the future's brains, not making 15 year olds act like professional athletes.

If we got rid of the programs we could make money for the school by leasing back use of all those facilities to the private sports programs, or sell or lease those lands to make money for our schools.

[Joe Pyritz]

I have read all three parts of Mr. Safier's thesis on why we should cut after school sports.

Not in one of the postings does he:
1. Show any real evidence to back up his claims.
2. Tosses out his inferences that may or may not have anything to do to support his claims.

Honestly, I would expect more.

Speaking from the point of view as a former high school/college athlete and as a former high school baseball coach, I can confidently say Mr. Safier's claims that after school sports are bad for education are bunk.

I would argue that they enhance the high school experience.

I have seen some kids that would normally not give a care about their education actually put effort forward to keep their grades up to keep eligible. Not all student athletes are like that, but I can honestly say I have seen my fair share of kids who have focused their attention to turning their studies around to play sports. The classic carrot before the cart.

Not only does it enhance the lives of the students, it plays a big part in the lives of the coaches. Believe it or not, they are not paid much to coach. I used that money to augment my meager paycheck (I think I was paid around $500 for a season.) These coaches do not spend their time out there for the money, they do it for the love of the sport and the experience with the kids.

Like it or not, some students are motivated by the chance to better their lives through athletic scholarships. Is that such a bad thing?

If we start to turn this part of the high school experience over to a for-profit agency-how many kids from the lower economic strata will not be able to participate because it costs too much? Where will they go? Who will they turn to for leadership? Many coaches have a very personal affect on the lives of their athletes. Does Vern Friedli ring a bell?

I would also take to issue your 15 to 20 hours a week spent on sports. I think the most we would spend at practice was 1 1/2 to 2 hours. Our games would be on Tuesdays and Saturdays. I think we counted up a total of 8 hours lost in a season due to travel. So that 15 to 20 hours a week is not anywhere in the ballpark (so to speak).

I think Mr. Safier's anger about the lack of funding in schools is misdirected toward the student-athlete. Perhaps he is grown wearisome about fighting the our regressive thinking legislature for the funding?

If we would cut after school sports, the cost in the future would outweigh the immediate satifaction of the savings realized.

[David Safier]

Thanks for the excellent, thoughtful post, Joe. Your points are valid. But here is the question at the heart of these posts. Assuming there is some good in after school sports -- and I think we can all assume there is -- are sports programs a cost effective way to spend limited school funds? If the government says, "Here's the money we're willing to give to the schools," and it's not enough to fund the vital components of a quality education, should we take a chunk of it and put it into a feel-good program that certainly has some merit but cannot be thought of as central to our educational mission?

What if Districts said to the legislature, "Give us the funding at our current level, and we'll spend it on quality education. If you like the idea of after school sports, write separate legislation to fund that program. Call it recreation, not education."

By the way, my 15-20 hours a week may have been high. I know the time spent differs from sport to sport and also at levels like Freshman, JV and Varsity. But to come up with that number, I started from the moment students entered the locker room in their street clothes and ended the moment they walked out showered and dressed. That's going to add to practice time.

And Joe, bless you and all the coaches who put in ridiculous hours for little pay. I know it is a labor of love, and the best among you are working with the students as people, not just as bodies. If you were interested in making money, you would have made more per hour flipping burgers.